FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION APR 24 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 16-50229
Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No. 3:13-cr-03064-LAB
v.
MEMORANDUM*
JORGE PEREZ-DIAZ,
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of California
Larry A. Burns, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted April 11, 2017**
Before: GOULD, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
Jorge Perez-Diaz appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges
the 18-month custodial sentence and ten-month term of supervised release imposed
upon revocation of supervised release. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1291, and we affirm.
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
Perez-Diaz contends that the district court procedurally erred by failing to
consider his mitigating argument that his underlying deportation order may have
been erroneous. We review for plain error, see United States v. Valencia-
Barragan, 608 F.3d 1103, 1108 (9th Cir. 2010), and conclude that there is none.
The record reflects that the district court properly considered Perez-Diaz’s
arguments and explained sufficiently its determination that an above-Guidelines
sentence was warranted in light of his significant criminal and immigration history.
See Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, 357-58 (2007).
Perez-Diaz next contends that his sentence is substantively unreasonable in
light of the mitigating factors. The district court did not abuse its discretion in
imposing Perez-Diaz’s sentence. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51
(2007). The sentence is substantively reasonable in light of the 18 U.S.C.
§ 3583(e) factors and the totality of the circumstances, including the need for
deterrence. See Gall, 552 U.S. at 51; United States v. Gutierrez-Sanchez, 587 F.3d
904, 908 (9th Cir. 2009) (“The weight to be given the various factors in a particular
case is for the discretion of the district court.”).
AFFIRMED.
2 16-50229